BigZuck wrote:You two are about to bring down some major M butt hurt on your asses if you keep it up. B bros might even pop in if you don't cut it out.

Lol, why would B bros hop in? no one's really talked about berk cuz no one's really sure where they fit in. And it's not like I think Mich is a bad school - it's a very good school, and in fact I find it ridiculous that firms would rather skim the top off a bunch of Tier 2s and TTTs than take people below median at Michigan, but that's how it is unfortunately (another negative consequence of too many law schools, but that's more pertaining to another thread), and Penn has definitively better job placement than Mich (and better admissions stats), so you really can't treat them as equals.

BigZuck wrote:You two are about to bring down some major M butt hurt on your asses if you keep it up. B bros might even pop in if you don't cut it out.

Lol, why would B bros hop in? no one's really talked about berk cuz no one's really sure where they fit in. And it's not like I think Mich is a bad school - it's a very good school, and in fact I find it ridiculous that firms would rather skim the top off a bunch of Tier 2s and TTTs than take people below median at Michigan, but that's how it is unfortunately (another negative consequence of too many law schools, but that's more pertaining to another thread), and Penn has definitively better job placement than Mich (and better admissions stats), so you really can't treat them as equals.

MVP(B) (minus the P to be honest) butt hurt is a very, very real thing. You guys have chummed the waters, before you know it there will be M bros screaming "SELF SELECTION!!!!" and B bros making fun of UVA employing its own students.

Desert Fox wrote:HYS > MVP > DNCG is a pretty good way to map which schools are fighting over which candidates.

Pretty sure nobody is deciding between D/N and G or M/V and P. At least nobody with a brain.

Edit: also Duke v. Michigan at equal $$ is an extremely common scenario.

TLS not circle jerking about rankings is a relatively new phenomenon. Back when I started surfing TLS in very late 2008, ALL that mattered was USNEWS ranking. The common wisdom was go to the best school you could, and best was defined as USNEWS ranking. People (pretty correctly) thought T14 = big law no matter what. People weren't sitting around looking at NLJ250 data with bated breathe. They were looking at USNEWS.

Then people realized that big law was crashing and burning way later than they should have. Even then, people thought the Tiers they have worried so fuck would be clearly reflected in job prospects. Hey, if 0Ls were turning down 45k at Cornell to go to Michgian, that must means firms would prefer Michigan too right? WRONG. It took a while a to learn.

It really wasn't until late 2009 - 2010 did employment data even begin to be the big topic on school choice.

Michigans cache is falling because of it's TTT job placement stats the past few years. But before ITE they were definitely an admissions peer of MVP.

Desert Fox wrote:HYS > MVP > DNCG is a pretty good way to map which schools are fighting over which candidates.

Pretty sure nobody is deciding between D/N and G or M/V and P. At least nobody with a brain.

Hey dude, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Not really. I guess I could have clarified and said anybody concerned with getting a good job. All else equal, there's no good reason to pick G over D/N and no reason to pick M/V over P.

Honestly this whole thread needs to be taken out back and shot.

This is something I think we can all agree on.

Lol this is a pretty stupid thing to say as well, unless your "all else equal" and "no good reason" qualifiers are so strong as to make the assertion meaningless. All else is in fact never equal (scholarships, COA, location, ties, personal preference, family, significant other, what constitutes an apparently objective "good job," previous WE, etc.) and I'm sure there has been at least one person (with a brain) who's made such a decision for subjectively good reasons.

Yeah, you want to be careful with phrases like "no reason." I'd rather go to UVA over Penn (in fact, I am) because it better orients with my professional goals. That's not to say it's better than Penn--that will mean something different to each applicant. It's just that the areas Penn is especially strong in are not particularly of interest to me. Similarly, going to GULC over Northwestern is not necessarily unreasonable, depending on the specific goals of someone else.

I don't know about picking GULC over Duke (haven't considered it) or picking Michigan over Penn (don't really know enough about Michigan's strengths). But I'm sure you could talk to applicants who've done it and are very happy with their decision.

BigZuck wrote:You two are about to bring down some major M butt hurt on your asses if you keep it up. B bros might even pop in if you don't cut it out.

Lol, why would B bros hop in? no one's really talked about berk cuz no one's really sure where they fit in. And it's not like I think Mich is a bad school - it's a very good school, and in fact I find it ridiculous that firms would rather skim the top off a bunch of Tier 2s and TTTs than take people below median at Michigan, but that's how it is unfortunately (another negative consequence of too many law schools, but that's more pertaining to another thread), and Penn has definitively better job placement than Mich (and better admissions stats), so you really can't treat them as equals.

MVP(B) (minus the P to be honest) butt hurt is a very, very real thing. You guys have chummed the waters, before you know it there will be M bros screaming "SELF SELECTION!!!!" and B bros making fun of UVA employing its own students.

All of that stuff is secondary to the things that matter: employment data, cost, and location. If you're going for free, go crazy and do whatever makes you happy. But if you're taking out serious debt (like most people do), picking Michigan over Penn is an objectively stupid decision at equal cost because Penn gives you a substantially better chance at finding a job that can pay off your loans. (In b4 Mich trolls point out P.I. placement advantage, to which I'd respond that anybody who gets into Penn can also get into NYU which is far superior to Mich for P.I.).

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Yeah, you want to be careful with phrases like "no reason." I'd rather go to UVA over Penn (in fact, I am) because it better orients with my professional goals.

Which are what - to work at a school funded job? Penn blows UVA out of the water in pretty much every category that matters, and before you say it, no, I don't consider UVA's ~5% advantage in federal clerkships to be a good reason to pick it over Penn at equal cost.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Similarly, going to GULC over Northwestern is not necessarily unreasonable...

At equal cost, assuming that cost is > 0, yeah it is.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:I don't know about picking GULC over Duke (haven't considered it) or picking Michigan over Penn (don't really know enough about Michigan's strengths). But I'm sure you could talk to applicants who've done it and are very happy with their decision.

Those applicants made a dumb decision if they took out any kind of serious debt. Choosing GULC over Duke especially, at equal cost, is unjustifiable.

All of that stuff is secondary to the things that matter: employment data, cost, and location. If you're going for free, go crazy and do whatever makes you happy. But if you're taking out serious debt (like most people do), picking Michigan over Penn is an objectively stupid decision at equal cost because Penn gives you a substantially better chance at finding a job that can pay off your loans. (In b4 Mich trolls point out P.I. placement advantage, to which I'd respond that anybody who gets into Penn can also get into NYU which is far superior to Mich for P.I.).

If you're patent-eligible, PT (working as a patent agent at the same time in DC) at GULC at a discount over MVP is not a bad idea. Plenty of people do it. Seems like a good and eminently employable reason.

Lol to the bolded. Family and significant other are secondary to employment data? I think I see your point, but you're making way too strong of a claim here and previously.

Suralin wrote:If you're patent-eligible, PT (working as a patent agent at the same time in DC) at GULC at a discount over MVP is not a bad idea. Plenty of people do it. Seems like a good and eminently employable reason.

rickgrimes69 wrote:at equal cost

Suralin wrote:Lol to the bolded. Family and significant other are secondary to employment data? I think I see your point, but you're making way too strong of a claim here and previously.

Bro this is professional school. Choosing a school with substantially worse employment numbers only because you can't bear to be away from your family for three years is seriously misplacing your priorities (and I say that as someone whose family is very important to me and yet still chose to attend school across the country).

Suralin wrote:If you're patent-eligible, PT (working as a patent agent at the same time in DC) at GULC at a discount over MVP is not a bad idea. Plenty of people do it. Seems like a good and eminently employable reason.

rickgrimes69 wrote:at equal cost

Suralin wrote:Lol to the bolded. Family and significant other are secondary to employment data? I think I see your point, but you're making way too strong of a claim here and previously.

Bro this is professional school. Choosing a school with substantially worse employment numbers only because you can't bear to be away from your family for three years is seriously misplacing your priorities (and I say that as someone whose family is very important to me and yet still chose to attend school across the country).

rickgrimes69 wrote: Which are what - to work at a school funded job? Penn blows UVA out of the water in pretty much every category that matters, and before you say it, no, I don't consider UVA's ~5% advantage in federal clerkships to be a good reason to pick it over Penn at equal cost.

I want to work DC Biglaw. UVA places higher per-capita in DC V100 than does Penn. I am advised by people who know things that DC firms will look more favorably upon a top 25% applicant from UVA than one from Penn.

That doesn't mean UVA > Penn. That means it's the better school for me, considering my goals. Obviously if I were gunning for Wachtell I'd have a different take on the situation. There are people who want to do certain things who will think UVA is better for them, and there will be people who want to do certain other things who will think Penn is better. Each applicant will want something slightly different out of their school. It's not a dick-measuring contest. When you're talking about schools that have very similar numbers all-around, there's no reason to use the word "unjustifiable" when clearly someone could justify either one.

I'm sure GULC applicants that chose it over D/N could say similar things. I don't want to speak for them because I didn't make that decisions. But this process isn't as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

rickgrimes69 wrote: Which are what - to work at a school funded job? Penn blows UVA out of the water in pretty much every category that matters, and before you say it, no, I don't consider UVA's ~5% advantage in federal clerkships to be a good reason to pick it over Penn at equal cost.

I want to work DC Biglaw. UVA places higher per-capita in DC V100 than does Penn. I am advised by people who know things that DC firms will look more favorably upon a top 25% applicant from UVA than one from Penn.

That doesn't mean UVA > Penn. That means it's the better school for me, considering my goals. Obviously if I were gunning for Wachtell I'd have a different take on the situation. There are people who want to do certain things who will think UVA is better for them, and there will be people who want to do certain other things who will think Penn is better. Each applicant will want something slightly different out of their school. It's not a dick-measuring contest. When you're talking about schools that have very similar numbers all-around, there's no reason to use the word "unjustifiable" when clearly someone could justify either one.

I'm sure GULC applicants that chose it over D/N could say similar things. I don't want to speak for them because I didn't make that decisions. But this process isn't as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

I'd be surprised if there really was that much of a meaningful difference between P and V in DC placement ability. DC is really about grades more than anything.

rickgrimes69 wrote: Which are what - to work at a school funded job? Penn blows UVA out of the water in pretty much every category that matters, and before you say it, no, I don't consider UVA's ~5% advantage in federal clerkships to be a good reason to pick it over Penn at equal cost.

I want to work DC Biglaw. UVA places higher per-capita in DC V100 than does Penn. I am advised by people who know things that DC firms will look more favorably upon a top 25% applicant from UVA than one from Penn.

That doesn't mean UVA > Penn. That means it's the better school for me, considering my goals. Obviously if I were gunning for Wachtell I'd have a different take on the situation. There are people who want to do certain things who will think UVA is better for them, and there will be people who want to do certain other things who will think Penn is better. Each applicant will want something slightly different out of their school. It's not a dick-measuring contest. When you're talking about schools that have very similar numbers all-around, there's no reason to use the word "unjustifiable" when clearly someone could justify either one.

I'm sure GULC applicants that chose it over D/N could say similar things. I don't want to speak for them because I didn't make that decisions. But this process isn't as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

I'd be surprised if there really was that much of a meaningful difference between P and V in DC placement ability. DC is really about grades more than anything.

The way I understand it is that the difference, while in UVA's favor, is very narrow. Some firms have a distinctly more favorable cutoff for V, while others score them exactly equally. There's decent variability even among the ten best or so.

If I wanted PI, I would never take NU. I'm not sure about Penns reputation for PI but it gives me pause. Chicago too, even if their putting more of an effort into this category as of late. Same with Cornell.

Anyways, the point is that it isn't black and white and to call it so whilst insulting others intelligence is...something else.

sinfiery wrote:Whenever I have a concern about.V, I remember they have a 40% instate quota and it never ceases to leave me amazed at how amazing a school must be to accomplish what they have with such a constraint.

I would take UVA for the south/DC. M for Chicago/Midwest. P for Pennsylvania/NYC and B for west coast from MVPB at equal cost.

I would take D for the south, D or C for NYC, N for Chi/Midwest, and Gtown if DC or bust.

If I wanted PI, I would never take NU. I'm not sure about Penns reputation for PI but it gives me pause. Chicago too, even if their putting more of an effort into this category as of late. Same with Cornell.

Anyways, the point is that it isn't black and white and to call it so whilst insulting others intelligence is...something else.

sinfiery wrote:Whenever I have a concern about.V, I remember they have a 40% instate quota and it never ceases to leave me amazed at how amazing a school must be to accomplish what they have with such a constraint.

Presuming residents are a little less than 10% of the applicant pool (as is historically true), that means you have ~700 resident applicants and ~6700 non-resident applications, competing for 140 resident spots and 215 nonresident spots. Presume a) overall yield is about 50% (yes, I know it's the most YP doctored of all T14 yield rates, but still the number to use for this calculation) and an in-state yield of about 75% (a guess, because in-staters are more likely to make UVA their first choice because they like where it places, and because due to the resident boost, it's the highest-ranked school they get into much of the time). That would mean about 185 offers to residents, leaving about 515 for nonresidents. 515/6700 = Nonresident acceptance rate of 7.7%. That's a YP heavy number, but it still indicates that it's tougher to get in as a nonresident than maybe anywhere besides HYS and Berkeley. On the other hand, resident acceptance rate of 185/700 = 26.4%.

Dean Trujillo claims the medians for residents and nonresidents are not statistically distinguishable. Is that even possible? I know you can game your medians so that they hug your 75ths, but still, that discrepancy seems too large to work.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Dean Trujillo claims the medians for residents and nonresidents are not statistically distinguishable. Is that even possible? I know you can game your medians so that they hug your 75ths, but still, that discrepancy seems too large to work.

This is something I just can't imagine how they pull off that I'm comfortable leaving under the label "magic" in my mind.

Yeah, I guess that's true for Chicago. Always forget you already have two feeder schools for a market that isn't as big as NYC.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Dean Trujillo claims the medians for residents and nonresidents are not statistically distinguishable. Is that even possible? I know you can game your medians so that they hug your 75ths, but still, that discrepancy seems too large to work.

This is something I just can't imagine how they pull off that I'm comfortable leaving under the label "magic" in my mind.

I didn't realize until months into TLS lurking that if a school had enough splitters and reverse splitters, it was possible for a student at both medians to be by far the most qualified applicant in the entire pool. If the median LSAT for residents (26% acceptance rate) is 168 or 169, I shudder to think what the resident LSAT 25% is.